of Fact, at 8-9). The court, having already considered defendant's factual argument, finds no manifest error in these findings of fact.
120) This finding of fact established that during his detention as a POW and a suspected war criminal, defendant never claimed to be a citizen of the United States. Defendant seeks to draw an inference from this finding that he failed to understand his status as a citizen of the United States. Defendant does not challenge the factual accuracy of this finding and, therefore, has presented no legal grounds for relief based on manifest error in the factual finding. In addition, defendant's argument is in direct conflict with his own testimony and our finding that defendant was clearly aware of his United States citizenship since his teenage years. (See Decision, at 42-45).
150-153) Defendant challenges these findings which discuss defendant's application for naturalization and his answers to certain questions on the N-400 Application. Defendant made the same objections when plaintiff proposed this finding in its post-trial memorandum. (See Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Proposed Findings of Fact, at 13-17). The court, having already considered defendant's factual argument, finds no manifest error in these findings of fact.
155-156) Defendant challenges these findings which describe defendant's representations of his citizenship and their effect on the naturalization examiner who approved his petition for naturalization. Defendant argues that the examiner should not have been misled by defendant's failure to disclose his membership in the Waffen -SS Totenkopfsturmbann. This court carefully analyzed both the law and facts regarding material omissions under 8 U.S.C. § 1451. (See Decision, at 75-79). We are satisfied that defendant's representation that he was "stateless, last of Romania" and his omissions regarding his membership in the Waffen -SS constitute material omissions which led the naturalization examiner to approve defendant's application. We find no manifest error in these findings of fact.
MOTION TO AMEND FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Defendant also has moved for the entry of amended findings of fact and conclusions of law, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(b). This Rule permits a trial court, on motion made by a party not later than 10 days after entry of judgment, to amend its findings, make additional findings, and to amend its judgment accordingly. On motions to amend, however, the findings of fact made by the trial court are entitled to presumptive validity, and will be set aside only if they are clearly erroneous. Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a). See e.g., Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3rd Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171, 90 L. Ed. 2d 982, 106 S. Ct. 2895 (1986). Like a Motion for New Trial, the purpose of a motion to amend judgment is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. Id. A motion to alter or amend the judgment should not be employed (1) to introduce evidence that was available at trial but was not proffered,
(2) to advance new theories, or (3) to secure a rehearing on the merits. Kravco Co. v. Valley Forge Center Assoc., No. 91-4932, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 260, *4-*5 (E.D. Pa., January 8, 1992). A court should amend its findings or judgment only if errors are found that "seriously affect substantial rights or compromise the fairness of the proceedings." United States v. Bey, 736 F.2d 891, 893 (3d Cir. 1984).
In defendant's motion to amend, he improperly asks this court to adopt findings of fact which we previously have considered and either incorporated into our opinion or rejected. Each of defendant's proposed amendments to the findings of fact were presented to the court in defendant's Post-Trial Brief filed on May 18, 1993. (Defendant's Post-Trial Brief, "Statement of Facts," 2-6.) Defendant's motion to amend findings of fact, therefore, is merely a flagrant attempt to reargue issues previously decided, even after a voluminous record had been compiled and complete sets of briefs and memoranda submitted. This court severely frowns upon such practice. "If a court has once rendered its best efforts to arrive at a proper solution of questions submitted, upon complete presentation, it should not be subjected to a demand to consider the same again. Otherwise, litigation would never end." Pioneer Paper Stock Co. v. Miller Transport Co., 109 F. Supp. 502, 504 (D. N.J. 1953), citing Stewart-Warner Corp. v. Levally, 16 F. Supp. 778, 779 (N.D. Ill. 1936).
Because the defendant's motion to amend or alter findings of fact is neither a vehicle for reargument, nor a forum to obtain a rehearing, and since this court already has reviewed and ruled on defendant's proposed amendments, we must deny this motion to amend findings of fact and conclusions of law.
For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion for a New Trial And/Or Amendment of Judgment and for Amended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law is denied. We feel we must question the true purpose of the motion in light of its procedural infirmities and lack of legal and factual support.
An appropriate order follows.
AND NOW, this 28th day of October, 1993, consistent with the foregoing Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Defendant, Nikolaus Schiffer's Motion for a New Trial and/or Amendment of Judgment and for Amended Findings of Fact and Conclustions of Law, filed September 4, 1993, is hereby DENIED
2. Defendant, Nikolaus Schiffer's Supplemental Motion for Relief from Judgment under Rule 60(b)(2), filed October 25, 1993, is DENIED as MOOT.
3. Defendant, Nikolaus Schiffer's Supplemental Motion for Stay, filed October 25, 1993, is DENIED as MOOT.
BY THE COURT:
HON. FRANKLIN S. VAN ANTWERPEN
United States District Judge